YouTube Says UMG Had No 'Right' To Take Down Megaupload Video 220
An anonymous reader writes "Contrary to a previous story, Google played no part in the Megaupload takedown. From Wired: 'YouTube said Friday that Universal Music abused the video-sharing site's piracy filters when it employed them to take down a controversial video of celebrities and pop superstars singing and praising the notorious file-sharing service Megaupload.'"
And now we see... (Score:5, Interesting)
This shit is why there should be penalties for abuse. These guys routinely do whatever the fuck they want regardless of Fair Use or any other rights the people have. I have seen this myself as every single video I have uploaded that had a DMCA claim made, when I challenged it, the videos were reinstated within a day or two. They know the claims are bullshit, but they're banking on the fact that people won't assert their rights.
Start hitting them with damages when they file these erroneous claims and watch how fast that shit stops....
so is that criminal, then? (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the broad overreach [pdf] [volokh.com] of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to count violations of Terms of Service agreements as "unauthorized access" (i.e. "hacking"), it be a criminal offense for UMG to violate Google's rules on how its piracy filters are to be used?
Re:Way to Go Universal! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hear, hear. I didn't know what Megaupload was until Universal did this.
Re:Way to Go Universal! (Score:5, Interesting)
Me too.
Now I have an account.
Thanks UMG!
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:5, Interesting)
In all, no DMCA would have been better -- at least the public would have seen just how out-of-control copyright has become when their favorite websites were driven out of business by lawsuits. Right now the public is shielded from the consequences of overly-broad copyright -- only the hackers and intellectuals who do not fit the mold suffer. If we could keep only the good parts of the DMCA and get rid of the bad, that would be ideal -- yet without broad public support, that will never happen, and as long as it is only the hackers who suffer, there will never be such support.
Re:Still guilty in my eyes... (Score:2, Interesting)
And what exactly is Google meant to do? Hire loads of people to sift through every DMCA claim
Yes. They don't need to make sure if the actual content is infringing or not, DMCA is very clear on the procedure. If the original uploader think it violates others copyrights, then he can submit counter-notice and get it back. At this point Google doesn't anymore have any responsibility - now it's up to the two parties to fight it over, most likely in court.
The takedown notices are bullshit, it shouldn't just be taken down without question, rather the person who uploaded it should be informed of the infringement and given the chance to defend themselves, without Google having to get involved (or whoever runs the site in question - this doesn't just apply to youtube, after all).
It can't work like that because then all the copyright infringing person could do is not reply to the notice. How long should Google, or other site owner, wait for reply? 14 days? Maybe he is on holiday. One month? Half an year?
DMCA already also has penalties for fake notices. It is already very good law. Thing is, Google has provided copyright owners EXTRA access on top of DMCA to remove videos and isn't processing DMCA notices (and especially counter-notices) as strictly as law allows.
Google smear campaign? (Score:5, Interesting)
It sure seems like it. All these articles come out with wildly sensationalist, and misleading, headlines about Google.
And it always turns out that the over-the-top "news" is just google smearing BS.
For example that article about "Google stores credit card information in plain text" and now this. Then that was that article that made such a big fuss about the update time-table for Android phones. And all that was just yesterday.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:5, Interesting)
DMCA itself is good.
+5 Insightful? "DMCA itself is good"? Are you serous? It most definitely is not "good": that abomination should never, ever have been signed into law in its current form. Have you read it? If not, I suggest you do. Yes, SOPA is worse, but keep in mind that an MPAA law firm wrote the DMCA, and handed the thing to their tame Congressman for submission. We know this because a reporter extracted the metadata from the original Word document, and found the names of all the attorneys that had modified or reviewed it. It was not designed to balanced or fair, or to be a reasonable augmentation to copyright to accommodate technological advances. It was, purely and simply, all they thought they could get away with at the time. Look at the history of copyright extension in the U.S. the DMCA was only one of a long line of unholy modifications to copyright law that have done nothing but screw the American people, harm the public domain, and tie up an incredible quantity of court time on issues that often have nothing to do with copyright! It's an excellent period in U.S. history to become an "intellectual property" (whatever the Hell that actually means) lawyer, I suppose. That's another reason why these laws get passed: certain sectors of the legal profession make a lot of money.
So now, a decade down the road, they're pulling out all the stops, buying all the Congresspeople they can, to finally and permanently remove copyright from its Constitutionally-mandated role to "promote the advancement of the useful arts and sciences." Remember who you are dealing with here: you cannot argue with them, you cannot reason with them, and they absolutely will not stop. Period. End of statement.
Personally, I believe the practice of public officials taking bribes from foreign-owned corporations should be considered treasonous. But that's just me. I also have a fond wish that the Department of Justice would expel the ex-RIAA attorneys that our friend and savior Barack Obama appointed, and go after the corporations and corrupt Federal officials that have turned our patent and copyright systems into a corporatist welfare system.
I don't expect to get much joy there either.
Re:Way to Go Universal! (Score:5, Interesting)
According to Alexa.com, the popularity of Megaupload seems to have increased about 15-20% in the last couple of weeks. Not only can we name the Streisand Effect, in this case we can measure it.
By the way, Streisand uses Sony/Columbia for her music. It would have been ironic if she was signed with Universal.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:0, Interesting)
I'd say a million dollars per violation sounds about right. with a 50% upswing per additional violation, if multiple violations in a day.
1st violation in a 24 hr period 1 million, 2nd 1.5 million (2.5 total), 3rd 2.25million (4.75 total), 4th 3.375 million (8.125 total), etc...
Maybe that will get their attention...
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:3, Interesting)
I get disappointed when I hear statements like this. Protections could be implemented without DMCA or the other provisions of it. Not to rag on you man, but I'm seriously tired of people having the we have to take the good with the bad view. It sucks. Period. It sucks even more because we didn't have to have it.
Lawyers weren't launching mass lawsuits against website owners before DMCA. We can argue that they just weren't prepared, but there was really no legal precedent for it or any laws to describe how it should work. DMCA gave legal firms justification for pursuing lawsuits against website owners and people posting infringing content by further defining IP and its penalties.
While copyright owners were given a couple of more ways to profit, i.e. launching lawsuits to make up for failing sales from poor products, at the end of the day the real profit came from the realization that they had to adapt their business model.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:4, Interesting)
The penalty is not heavy enough.
And big corporations can still spamigate the competition with DMCA notices and not worry about splitting hairs if the people they hit are too scared or broke to fight back in court.
Now if the same perjury penalties for sending a false *counter* notice also applied to the original notice itself, we'd see a lot less frivolous use of DMCA notices.
Lawyers facing disbarment and jail time would think twice before they send a frivolous notice.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:5, Interesting)
People who file counter-notices are already certifying their innocence under penalty of perjury.
Make the original party bound by the same requirements for sending the notice in the first place.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:2, Interesting)